If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So - should we take away the benefits that those without children have? What about those who have long since raised their children?

Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.

Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.

Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).

Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.

I'm all for protecting marriage. I'm also all for giving everyone possible a way of getting around and away from the confiscatory taxes the government uses.

Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).

bullshit. Gheys like leftists and pro-abortion pseudo-conservative atheists can give an approximation but they cannot provide the real thing.

bullshit. Gheys like leftists and pro-abortion pseudo-conservative atheists can give an approximation but they cannot provide the real thing.

An approximation of what? Some ethereal concept of the ideal family that doesnt actually exist?

Many many people from any of those groups you mention ( I can't believe you starting throwing political stances and religious belief in there ) would create much better families than millions of the dysfunctional 'traditional' families out there.

The nuclear family is a concept like a pure free market... it doesnt actually exist in its true ideal form.

Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).

They can provide similar benefits. But what does that have to do with anything?

Should the federal government continue to provide SS benefits to married couples? How about protection on pensions and pension beneficiaries? The same favorable tax rate on transfers of property between spouses?

What are the purposes behind the current laws? Are those same purposes properly served by providing them to non-married "couples"?

Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.

I disagree. The original purpose of the marriage benefit was to facilitate the union of two heterosexuals who were more than likely to reproduce, raise a family, and function as grandparents at some point in time. That family provided social identity and stability and relieved the State of the burdensome job of housing, feeding, clothing, and instructing current and future citizens. That's all over now.

The State now has a vested interest in reducing its obligations to individuals while still sucking them dry for as long as possible. The "family" structure is no longer of any interest to the State since people are in increasingly unstable relationships and since the burden of caring for children is now juggled between the State and a virtually random group of parental sexual partners, former spouses, and biological parents.

While the State no longer has any interest in promoting family stability, it still does have a huge interest in not paying for any services, if possible. It's in the best interest of the State to promote any financial arrangement in which people (related or not, sexual or not) meet each other's needs in terms of care and finances. This frees up more money for taxes, fees, permits, and the like.